There are both forms and even a hybrid form (part of the application accesses shared database and part uses alone). This can still vary whether companies are different customers or companies within the group. Each with its advantages.
There is no specific technology, can be applied virtually to any technology.
One of the forms of this technique is called multitenancy.
Particularly, in the vast majority of cases, I think having a database for each company is a better solution. It gives more flexibility to scale, to customize, it is easier to give more security, in short, it has a lot of specific advantages that are not the case. It takes more work to update, has more costs. It can automate to a certain extent. It depends on the application, depends on the need for data consolidation and a number of other technical and political factors. It takes extra work to keep it all together.
In some cases you don’t need to have separate seats, but yes schemas.
If you have specific questions applying the technique, go posting.
Consider that using only one bank is not so advantageous @bigown?
– Wellington Avelino
It is the old depends :) Everything has its advantages. But in general, yes.
– Maniero
haha, nor will I take this discussion too far forward otherwise it would be 50++ comments
– Wellington Avelino
comments, think you saw before I edit
– Wellington Avelino
Separate into schemas I think the best solution, I would only separate into different banks if it were a mega application, or if the customer demanded
– fabiohbarbosa
I have this same doubt in a scenario with Asp.net-mvc and postgre in a system that will generate the banks dynamically. In these past 3 years, I would like to know more about the subject. Or even request a possible "update" response. Rs
– rbz
@RBZ between the blue "comment" in the question and the "1 Answer" has solution to outdated answers :)
– Maniero
"Offer a reward" !? (I had to go on desktop mode on mobile, trolou me haha)
– rbz